Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nimitz class aircraft carrier/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 03:05, 16 June 2010 [1].

Nimitz class aircraft carrier edit

Nimitz class aircraft carrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Fourth ventricle (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on this article for a long time now (I used the account Jhbuk by the way), and I thought now would be a good opportunity to try an FAC. It is currently a GA and I have worked on it since that review, so I now feel that it is just about there. I'm willing to put in any work required for improvements. Fourth ventricle (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed 3, but http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6712/is_24_239/ai_n29459545/ seems to work. Fourth ventricle (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Must have been temporary; all external links fine now. Ucucha 12:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nimitz.gif requires a caption Fasach Nua (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and referencing

  • A number of references lack publisher information, specically: 2, 19, 24, 29, 40 to 43 (all same source), 47, 50, 53
I've done most, but I wasn't really sure what to put for 29. Fourth ventricle (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 6 still lacks a publisher. Brianboulton (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The standard form of paging used is "p. xxx" Refs 7 and 11 use different page number forms, and should be standardised,
  • I was repeatedly timed out on Ref. 22
  • Print sources should be italicised, e.g. in Refs 25, 26 (where the publisher is Frontline not "Frontline Magazine"), 73
I don't beliew that "Bloomberg P.P." (56) and "GMA News" (57) are print sources, therefore should not be italicised. Brianboulton (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Access problems with Ref 54
  • ISBN missing from Ref. 74
  • Ref. 76 gives an incorrect article title
  • Ref. 78: standard format is title before publisher
  • Ref. 82: the publisher is given as "Defense Industry Daily", but the article appears to come from Newport News, unless I am misunderstanding something.
I think it is actually "Defense Daily" and I misread it - Newport News seems to be the location. Otherwise, I think I've sorted everything listed out. Fourth ventricle (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources and references look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that a number of references have been changed or withdrawn. What are the current numbers of what were 74, 76, 78 and 82 when I did the initial sources review? Brianboulton (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
74 is now 65; 76 is 67; 78 is now 69; 82 is now 72 Fourth ventricle (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think they've changed again...(my fault for not checking back sooner). I've done a quick recheck, and I think allis now well, formatwise. Brianboulton (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I originally passed this article for GA and laid out eight additional points to amend which Jhbuk has done. Obviously he will rectify the issues laid out by FA Toolbox, so I'm pre-emptively supporting this. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments -- impressed with what I gather is a first attempt at FAC. A few prose issues:
    • The Nimitz-class aircraft carriers were ordered to supplement the aircraft carriers of the Kitty Hawk class and Enterprise class, in order to maintain the size and ability of the US Navy after previous carriers were decommissioned. -- "in order to" shouldn't really be necessary, "size and ability" sounds a bit weak, and you use "previous" in the next sentence. How about The Nimitz-class aircraft carriers were ordered to supplement the aircraft carriers of the Kitty Hawk class and Enterprise class, maintaining the strength and capability of the US Navy after the older carriers were decommissioned.?
    • Perhaps I missed something but In total, the cost of construction for each ship was around $4.5 billion sounds a bit odd -- if it's a total, doesn't that mean the cost of all the ships, not each individual ship? Perhaps you mean The total cost of construction for each ship was around $4.5 billion.
    • The Construction section is phrased as though the ships were still being built but, if Bush is indeed the last, it would probably make sense to change to past tense.
    • Might be an idea to swap sides for the propeller and Sea Sparrow images to alternate left and right, which you generally seem to be doing in the rest of the article.
    • Think we hyphenate "nine degree" (x2).
    • Believe we generally say "World War II", not "World War 2".
    • The ships were designed to have a fifty-year service life. They will continue operating at full capacity until that time when they will be decommissioned. -- think you should say "Each will continue operating", presuming they won't be decommissioned all at once but as each reaches its 50th year.
    • You don't need to include supercarrier in See Also when it's linked in the prose.
    • Aside from those relatively minor items, the structure, detail, referencing and supporting materials look good - well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reading through tha article; I think I've done everything recommended. Fourth ventricle (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, tks for that. A couple of other things came up following the recent edits though -- I'm not sure of the standard you're applying on the class names under Design:
  • First off, "Nimitz-class" has lost its italics -- should still be "Nimitz-class" surely?
  • Second, you say "Kitty Hawk class" and "Enterprise class" -- "class" should be part of the piped link in either both or neither.
  • Further, the standard seems to be to hyphenate the name with "class", e.g. "Kitty Hawk-class", "Enterpise-class".
As it's being used as a noun here, it is standard not to hyphenate (WP:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Ship_classes)
Yep, that makes sense. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, you link Enterprise to USS Enterprise first up, then to USS Enterprise (CVN-65) -- the first is a dab page, it's the second one you should be using (the first time it appears only).
One other thing entirely, don't think "blue-water" needs hyphenating in this case (it's hyphenated in "blue-water navy" because it's a compound adjective describing "navy"). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I've always seen it as hyphenated (Blue-water navy). Fourth ventricle (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a major deal in comparision to the other items so I'm not going to hold up support at this stage, but it looks odd here because you're using "blue water" on its own the same way you're using "Enterprise class" on its own (as a noun not an adjective) so why should one have a hyphen and one not? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I see what you mean. Fourth ventricle (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I was being a bit careless. Fourth ventricle (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable referencing

  • New issue: Currently numbered [7] this citation points to the NVR. I don't see any information on that page that is backing up information where you've used it. The page lists only hull numbers and names. Brad (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently done Brad (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have concern over the reliability of several sources used for this article.

Based on past ship articles the following are not reliable sources:

Brad (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some strikes made. Brad (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did have some concerns over some websites you mentioned, but can you expand on these four in particular please:

There is nothing at the site where it can be determined how exactly they've assembled and published their articles. There are no listed sources or footnotes. It seems to be accurate from what I know about the ships but the object at FAC is to supply high quality sources. I have difficulty considering this one of high quality. Brad (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.globalsecurity.org/ (I thought this seemed OK; eg: this forbes review)
  • The Encyclopedia of Ships (DANFS is an RS?)
    • I was referring to:Gibbons, Tony (2001). The Encyclopedia of Ships. London, United Kingdom: Amber Books. p. 444. ISBN 978-1-905704-43-9. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) Brad (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that you seem to be arguing that this is unrelable simply because it's an encyclopedia, but DANFS is an encyclopedia, fequently used as an RS? Fourth ventricle (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave this one alone and see what others have to say. Brad (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FAS and Global Security are actually intertwined with each other. Earlier this year at a FAR I discovered that an FAS article used as a reference had in fact plagiarized an article(link now dead) written by the US Navy by not giving proper credit to the navy. The sources that FAS lists at the bottom of their articles are very shoddy. For example, the source that you use here has listed information from the Newport News shipbuilding website and then, cited another FAS article. This is like citing a wikipedia article with another wikipedia article. I can list more about FAS if you like but many of the FAS articles have sourced information to sites that we don't allow in ship articles ourselves like veterans websites and navsource.
At Global Security the problem just followed the move of a person from FAS to Global Security. See this link. One of the GS articles that you cite here has absolutely nothing noted for sources. This is again about a FAC having high quality sources. Brad (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I've changed all of them apart from those four. Some I just took out, as another ref had the same information (I often tend to over-cite). Fourth ventricle (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Source reliability appears to be addressed. Brad (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Can we get a separate Bibliography?
  • Titles need to conform with WP:CAPS#Composition titles
  • Publisher location is needed for several books. The UK doesn't not suffice as a location; need a specific city. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • It was going so well until CAW.
  • "In order for a carrier to deploy, it must embark one of ten Carrier Air Wwings." Typo fix.
  • "...are integrated with the operating of the carriers they are deployed to..." operating -> operation.
  • "...aircraft and ordnance handling, and emergency procedures." Remove final comma.
  • "...4–6 E-2C Hawkeyes used for early warning..." -> "4–6 E-2C Hawkeyes for airborne early warning and control"?
  • "Another important reason for the use of a nine degree angle specifically was to improve the air flow around the carrier, by reducing the angle slightly, relative to previous carriers." is a clumsy sentence, rephrase.
  • "To launch fixed-wing aircraft, four steam catapults are used, and four arrestor wires are used for recovery (although Reagan and Bush only have three arrestor wires each, as the fourth was used infrequently on other ships and was therefore deemed unnecessary)." Also clumsy, rewrite. Parentheses are not recommended in article text. Also, "Four steam catapults are used to launch fixed-wing aircraft..." would scan much better.
  • "This CATOBAR arrangement allows for faster launching and recovery, and a much wider range of aircraft that can be used on board compared with aircraft carriers in service with other world navies, most of which use a simpler STOVL arrangement, without catapults or arrestor wires." Clumsy, also 'other world armies' is vague. Rewrite.
  • "The hangars on the ships are located below the flight deck and are connected by four elevators." Clumsy, rewrite. Please rip out and replace this entire paragraph.
  • "They are divided into three fire bays by thick steel doors that are designed to restrict the spread of fire. This addition has been present on US aircraft carriers since World War II, after the fires caused by Japanese kamikaze attacks.[6]" Was this copy-pasted from-to another section? Please avoid duplication.
  • "When an aircraft carrier deploys, it almost always takes a Strike Group, made up of several other warships and supply vessels which allow the deployment to be carried out." Almost always? Vague, rephrase. Repetition of deploys...deployment. Rephrase.
  • In "...not only provide additional capabilities..." and "...but also protect.." is superfluous and clunky. Instead, the Strike Group does A, B, C. " A typical Strike Group may include..."
  • "In addition to the aircraft carried onboard, the ships carry defensive equipment for direct use against missiles and hostile aircraft." + "The armament of the Nimitz class is made up only of short range, defensive weapons, used as a last line of defense against enemy missiles and aircraft." = repetition.
  • I give up. Sorry, my role here is not to request a copyedit on every single sentence.
  • I'm afraid it's noticeable that this didn't pass A-class. I love this class so please, fix everything from CAW down. Doug (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed that this would have gone better if it had gone through A-class first (although it's not dead yet). Copyediting is hard and time-consuming work, and I prefer not to do it if it looks like the article is going to wind up being rewritten for other reasons. If the reviewers agree that all that's separating this from an FA is some copyediting, I'll be happy to pitch in (if I'm needed, there are plenty of folks here who could do it). - Dank (push to talk) 15:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've made a reasonable start [3], and I think I've sorted the references out as well, although I wouldn't turn down any extra help. Fourth ventricle (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • File:Nimitz.gif - Is this a work of the US Government or the US Navy? Please clarify and provide a link to the source of the file.
Not done. Brad (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All other photos as of this minute are properly licensed and cited. However, photos are not following MOS. Starting from the infobox pic (right) they should be placed left-right-left etc where possible. Pics should not sandwich text between two pics or the infobox. Left aligned pics should not be directly underneath a ===Subsection===. Pics should not force themselves into another section, from the section above or below. You may just have to remove some. Brad (talk) 04:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MOS compliance not done. There remain left aligned pics under subsections and pics crowding into other sections. Brad (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments Every time I look over the article I find more issues.

  • Citations should appear in numerical order ie: [1][2][3] and not [3][2][1] or something similar.
  • Conversions need to be consistent. Right now you have a mix of metric converting into English or English into metric. Pick one style throughout the article. Since it's a US ship probably English to metric is right. Nautical measurements like knots need conversions to both English and metric.
There are still issues here. Brad (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • References section is overlinked. There is no need to repeatedly wikilink a term like Northrup Grumman Shipbuilding or Naval Vessel Register. Only wikilink a term on its first appearance in numerical order.
Still not done. Additionally as pointed out above the references are missing publication dates, publishers, and locations. Brad (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Sturmvogel you need a bibliography section. Sources with page numbers that are repeatedly cited need to go into a bibliography and only the author and page number should be used for the citation. Brad (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposing promotion of the article. It has been at FAC long enough where the outstanding problems should have been corrected. Brad (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably point out that I won't be able to do anything substantial on this article this week due to other commitments. Fourth ventricle (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Nimitz_class_aircraft_carrier/archive1&oldid=1138467884"